He supported a book banning law. He's in the wrong.
Now he's not gone back on that, he's complaining the law he supported is applying to his books.
He wants to be above the law while others are not.
He doesn't want to be above the law, he just wants language to only be understood how he understands it. Grade 4 reading level tops, all ambiguity and questions disallowed in favour of whatever baseless, glib assertion he wants to make. He wants, essentially, for everyone to be him. Narcissism, in short. The typical republican operating principle - "I'm right because I know everything by my feels" the goddamned retards
The clip of him screaming "Fuck it we'll do it live" is s great example of this. He doesn't understand the term "play us out" so he gets angry at everyone. He can't comprehend that that there are turns of speech he doesn't know, but rather than ask he gets angry at everyone else and pitches a fit like a toddler when they are confronted by something they don't understand.
We don’t know if the law actually applies to his books or if the school is just mad at him for supporting the law because the article doesn’t say anything
if the review board removed the book for violating guidelines its because the law allows for it. Period. This probably means the law itself is broader than he realized and now he's being a little baby.
I’d rather not buy his book to check, the journalist should have though if they wanted to cover this
Laws like these are designed to be vague. It's the intent that they get selectively applied. Of course it's a political play and it's a fair move. Same with banning the bible even though the law wasn't intended for that.
He supported a book banning law. He’s in the wrong.
Agreed, absolutely. The law is stupid, in any form.
Now he’s not gone back on that, he’s complaining the law he supported is applying to his books.
Can you support this claim? In the article he says that he supports the original theme of the law, but that the wording of the actual law is too nebulous. Did he actually support the law as-written because that changes a lot about my position.
He wants to be above the law while others are not.
Maybe that is the case, but the facts as I've seen them don't really support this conclusion. Unless I'm missing something.
Why are you giving Bill O'Reilly the benefit of the doubt, he's a ghoul
I don't really think this is a fair question no matter how you look at something or what you support.
The question he is asking is fair and this commenter genuinely once an answer to avoid the assumption which and then spin into misinformation about a subject.
It's not about giving benefit of the doubt its about asking for a valid claim. I don't support book banning and I hate this guy but I also hate Trump but I wouldn't want the current case to something of the opposite stance based on the way you are thinking.
Imagine if Trump was not given the benefit of the doubt and we got something factually wrong about his case. That creates room for an appeal. Same goes if Biden was on that stand.
Asking for something to support a claim is asking for something to support a fact not an opinion. The commenter is well within their rights to ask for information to support a claim not giving Bill the benefit of the doubt.
Thanks for putting it much more kindly and eloquently than I can.
If the question is "do you like O'Reilly" the answer is "no."
But the question is "do the facts support this current outrage against him" and, as far as I can tell, the answer is also "no."
You are basically arguing that the facts don't matter. I don't work this way, even when it comes to those I dislike.
I fully agree he's a ghoul. It is important however to be intellectually honest and morally consistent, lest we sink to the level of people like Fucker Carlson and Shill O'Reilly. Okay, maybe I'll sink a little sometimes...
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster."
Leftism is skepticism
You should be skeptical about O’Reilly having a decent, coherent thought.
Principles go right out the window when you dislike someone, eh?
He supported a book banning law. He's in the wrong.
Now he's not gone back on that, he's complaining the law he supported is applying to his books.
He wants to be above the law while others are not.
He doesn't want to be above the law, he just wants language to only be understood how he understands it. Grade 4 reading level tops, all ambiguity and questions disallowed in favour of whatever baseless, glib assertion he wants to make. He wants, essentially, for everyone to be him. Narcissism, in short. The typical republican operating principle - "I'm right because I know everything by my feels" the goddamned retards
The clip of him screaming "Fuck it we'll do it live" is s great example of this. He doesn't understand the term "play us out" so he gets angry at everyone. He can't comprehend that that there are turns of speech he doesn't know, but rather than ask he gets angry at everyone else and pitches a fit like a toddler when they are confronted by something they don't understand.
We don’t know if the law actually applies to his books or if the school is just mad at him for supporting the law because the article doesn’t say anything
if the review board removed the book for violating guidelines its because the law allows for it. Period. This probably means the law itself is broader than he realized and now he's being a little baby.
I’d rather not buy his book to check, the journalist should have though if they wanted to cover this
Laws like these are designed to be vague. It's the intent that they get selectively applied. Of course it's a political play and it's a fair move. Same with banning the bible even though the law wasn't intended for that.
Agreed, absolutely. The law is stupid, in any form.
Can you support this claim? In the article he says that he supports the original theme of the law, but that the wording of the actual law is too nebulous. Did he actually support the law as-written because that changes a lot about my position.
Maybe that is the case, but the facts as I've seen them don't really support this conclusion. Unless I'm missing something.
Why are you giving Bill O'Reilly the benefit of the doubt, he's a ghoul
I don't really think this is a fair question no matter how you look at something or what you support.
The question he is asking is fair and this commenter genuinely once an answer to avoid the assumption which and then spin into misinformation about a subject.
It's not about giving benefit of the doubt its about asking for a valid claim. I don't support book banning and I hate this guy but I also hate Trump but I wouldn't want the current case to something of the opposite stance based on the way you are thinking.
Imagine if Trump was not given the benefit of the doubt and we got something factually wrong about his case. That creates room for an appeal. Same goes if Biden was on that stand.
Asking for something to support a claim is asking for something to support a fact not an opinion. The commenter is well within their rights to ask for information to support a claim not giving Bill the benefit of the doubt.
Thanks for putting it much more kindly and eloquently than I can.
If the question is "do you like O'Reilly" the answer is "no."
But the question is "do the facts support this current outrage against him" and, as far as I can tell, the answer is also "no."
You are basically arguing that the facts don't matter. I don't work this way, even when it comes to those I dislike.
I fully agree he's a ghoul. It is important however to be intellectually honest and morally consistent, lest we sink to the level of people like Fucker Carlson and Shill O'Reilly. Okay, maybe I'll sink a little sometimes...
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster."
Leftism is skepticism
You should be skeptical about O’Reilly having a decent, coherent thought.
Principles go right out the window when you dislike someone, eh?